Anthony Painter

In the Independent this morning, John Rentoul poses the question: “Where does the Blair rage come from?” It is a valid question. He looks at the events of the Blair years- the turning points, the horrors, the media reaction, and the political fall-out. But Blair rage goes much deeper than that.

It is actually about us. We are used to being on the side of virtue. We are used to being on the side of good. We revere our leaders as they stand up to dictators and crush oppression. We are respected and we are admired. We are decent and we are just. Only in the case of Iraq we weren’t these things. And it wasn’t a demonic figure of the right who had led us there. It was a messianic figure of the left who triumphed over the forces of Thatcherism. How could this be? We must have been duped. And then this leads us back to Tony Blair- and to his relationship with the Bush Presidency.

For those of us who reflexively oppose almost any military action- especially one led by a right-wing Republican President- this was always clear. The majority are far more circumspect in their assessment of any military action; this is especially the case with invasion and regime change. As US forces ended their combat mission in Iraq yesterday, this is especially timely. They were engaged in glorious service. But let’s not mark this moment with a new revisionism. The assessment of our time in Iraq must place costs alongside outcomes. And the cost was enormous- in terms of life lost, the moral authority of democracies, and the geo-political consequences. Was removing a brutal dictator and giving Iraq a chance at making freedom and democracy work an acceptable outcome for these costs?

My guess is that relatively few people would take that cost v outcome balance if it was laid before them. And that is the source of the anger and the guilt. There were no Weapons of Mass Destruction and no programme to develop them in any meaningful way. Saddam Hussein miscalculated and so did we. And there is a terrible guilt about associating ourselves as a nation with that. The obvious impulse is to deflect that onto Tony Blair.

For his part, he has been remarkably consistent. I find that both frustrating and admirable at the same time. He writes in the chapter on Iraq:

“But the notion of ‘responsibility’ indicates not a burden discharged but a burden that continues. Regret can seem bound to the past. Responsibility has its present and future tense.”

This is the admirable element of his position. He hasn’t ever tried to deflect or reapportion blame for what transpired. The frustrating element of his position comes in the overall tone of the chapter which essentially suggests that his opponents haven’t properly thought through their position. This is Blair the missionary, the salesman, the defence lawyer in action- if only he had more time, if only there were more open minds, if only all the facts would reveal themselves then he will persuade his opponents of his case. So we are treated to yet another justification where facts are crammed into narrative – often distorted to fit. But we’ve heard it all before so not a single mind will be changed as a result. However, none of this warrants the vengeful attacks on Tony Blair’s integrity. He is a man of honour and integrity. He takes responsibility for his decisions but just makes a different calculation of the justice of the Iraq War.

But we bear collective responsibility for the Iraq War also- ‘not in my name’ is an easy refrain. And the best way to handle that responsibility is to insist that the mistakes aren’t repeated- we never accept arguments for regime change that are pre-emptive and insufficiently conclusive, we weigh the risks alongside the mission, our media becomes far more questioning, our politicians far more insistent on better evidence and more sufficient post-war planning, and we have a better awareness of what we may be walking into. Some did of course, most notably Robin Cook whose reputation can do little but rise. The vast majority did not and in this we are bound by collective responsibility as a nation.

These memoirs are utterly transfixing from the extracts that I’ve had some time to read so far. The language can be imprecise and cumbersome but there are flashes of insight into the man, his world, and what it means to be Prime Minister in the early part of the twenty-first century. One man who will be reading them is David Cameron for sure.

Like President Lyndon Johnson, Tony Blair is a man whose enormous domestic achievements will be over-shadowed by a disastrous foreign invasion. If we can place our Blair rage to one side then our consideration of the man and his achievements will be far more textured and fair. His ten years in office rebuilt the UK’s public services, extended fairness, were economically successful, and instituted significant democratic reforms. New Labour relied too much on the market while failing to reform the state enough and over-extending its power. To critique is not to condemn. Critique is a positive process. To turn critique into rejection is a mistake. Too easy. And dishonest.

The Blair years were good for Britain on balance and he was a good Prime Minister who made a monumental mistake. He was an expression of Britain at the time and now we are moving on. To pour scorn on Tony Blair is to pour scorn on ourselves. I for one consider it better to assume a standpoint of collective responsibility rather than collective guilt.

Oh, and he won three elections- the only Labour leader in my lifetime to win even one.